DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “PAYMENT FOR PARKING PLACE ENERGY USAGE” or any other descriptive title.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a supply-amount-information acquisition section for acquiring supply amount information …” in claims 1 and 5;
“a payment processing section for performing a process necessary for paying the provider …” in claim 1;
“a provision-side-identification-information acquisition section for acquiring provision-side identification information …” in claims 3 and 18;
“a fee-charge processing section for performing a process necessary for fee-charging …” in claims 4, 5, and 19-20;
“a use-side-identification-information acquisition section for acquiring use-side identification information …” in claim 7;
“a management apparatus for managing …” in claims 8, 10, and 16; and
“a transmission apparatus for transmitting …” in claims 11 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 12-13, and 19-20 recite the subjective term “necessary” to describe “a process necessary for … ” a payment or fee. When a subjective term is used in the claim, the specification must supply some objective standard for measuring the scope of the term. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). There is no objective standard for determining whether a process is necessary. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, any process performing claimed the payment or fee-charging can qualify as the BRI of a necessary process.
Claims 10 and 16 recite the limitation "a management apparatus" in line 4. There is improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “a management apparatus” has already been introduced and it cannot be determined how many management apparatuses are required by the claim.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8-11, and 14-18 depend upon one of claims 1, 4-5, 7, 12-13, and 19-20 and therefore inherit one of the above rejections of claims 1, 4-5, 7, 12-13, and 19-20.
The claim limitations discussed in the “Claim Interpretation” section above invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification in [0039] refers to various sections as computer software on a power-usage management server. Therefore, the specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1492 (stating that language that simply describes the function to be performed describes an outcome, not a means for achieving that outcome). The following descriptions in the specification describe the claimed sections simply by the function to be performed, which describes an outcome, not a means for achieving that outcome:
Specification [0042] describes “a supply-amount-information acquisition section for acquiring supply amount information …” in claims 1 and 5;
Specification [0077] describes “a payment processing section for performing a process necessary for paying the provider …” in claim 1;
Specification [0041] describes “a provision-side-identification-information acquisition section for acquiring provision-side identification information …” in claims 3 and 18;
Specification [0059] describes “a fee-charge processing section for performing a process necessary for fee-charging …” in claims 4, 5, and 19-20;
Specification [0041] describes “a use-side-identification-information acquisition section for acquiring use-side identification information …” in claim 7;
Specification [0036] and [0038] describe “a management apparatus for managing …” in claims 8, 10, and 16; and
Specification [0032] describes “a transmission apparatus for transmitting …” in claims 11 and 17.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitations discussed above in the “Claim Interpretation” section have been found to fail to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g. the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function and have been found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, these claim limitations also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 12-13 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 10-11 and 16-17 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 1-9, 14-15, and 18-20 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 5, 10-13, and 16-17, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of arranging the payments between parties to an electric vehicle charging session, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting paying for electric vehicle charging. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including business relations) by reciting communicating between parties to an electric vehicle charging in order to facilitate payment and billing of electricity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The method of organizing human activity of “arranging the payments between parties to an electric vehicle charging session,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: acquiring an amount of energy supplied, paying the provider a provision fee, fee-charging a user a usage fee for energy supplied, managing the energy supply target, and transmitting the supply amount information. The mere nominal recitation of an information processing apparatus does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 3-4, 7, and 18-20, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: identifying the energy output section or the provider, paying the provider, and fee-charging the user a usage fee.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 5, 10-13, and 16-17 recite the additional elements: an information processing apparatus. The information processing apparatus limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of paying to refuel a car in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing refueling process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 5, 10-13, and 16-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting an information processing apparatus. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), and retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): an information processing apparatus (Specification [0093]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting an information processing apparatus. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims limit the field of use by reciting supplying energy. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 2, 6, 8-9, and 14-15, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kemppainen et al. (U.S. 10,673,258 B2), hereinafter Kemppainen.
Claim 1.
Kemppainen discloses an information processing apparatus for performing an information processing regarding a provision of an energy, comprising:
a supply-amount-information acquisition section for acquiring supply amount information regarding an amount of energy supplied to an energy supply target of a user from an energy output section of a provider, the amount of energy being detected by a detection section of the energy supply target (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 28-31) measure consumption of electricity by the electric vehicle whilst charging the vehicle); and
a payment processing section for performing a process necessary for paying the provider a provision fee of the energy provided to the energy supply target from the provider, based on the supply amount information acquired by the supply-amount-information acquisition section (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 55-62), (Col. 15 Lines 23-30), (Col. 18 Lines 2-7), (Col. 21 Lines 55-60) first server apparatus arranges reimbursement to the second electricity provider for the electricity consumed during the charging session).
Claim 3.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Kemppainen discloses:
a provision-side-identification-information acquisition section for acquiring provision-side identification information capable of identifying the energy output section or the provider that supplies the energy to the energy supply target (Kemppainen (Col. 7 Lines 6-11) electric provider 1 (EP1) includes first server 4 and may be the provide with which the owner or driver of the vehicle has an agreement for the provision/supply of electricity; (Col. 7 Lines 12-17) electricity provider 2 (EP2) may be the electricity provider with which the owner of the power outlet has an agreement for the supply and payment of electricity; (Col. 9 Lines 22-42), (Col. 12 Lines 23-35) identify electricity provider 2 (EP2)).
wherein the payment processing section performs the process for paying to the provider specified by the provision-side identification information acquired by the provision- side-identification-information acquisition section (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 55-62), (Col. 15 Lines 23-30), (Col. 18 Lines 2-7), (Col. 21 Lines 55-60) first server apparatus arranges reimbursement to the second electricity provider for the electricity consumed during the charging session).
Claim 4.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Kemppainen discloses:
a fee-charge processing section for performing a process necessary for fee-charging the user a usage fee for the energy supplied from the energy output section and used for the energy supply target, based on the supply amount information acquired by the supply-amount-information acquisition section (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 48-53) debit the account of the driver).
Claim 5.
Kemppainen discloses an information processing apparatus for performing an information processing regarding a use of an energy, comprising:
a supply-amount-information acquisition section for acquiring supply amount information regarding an amount of energy supplied to an energy supply target of a user from an energy output section of a provider, the amount of energy being detected by a detection section of the energy supply target (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 28-31) measure consumption of electricity by the electric vehicle whilst charging the vehicle); and
a fee-charge processing section for performing a process necessary for fee- charging the user a usage fee for energy supplied from the energy output section and used for the energy supply target, based on the supply amount information acquired by the supply- amount-information acquisition section (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 48-53) debit the account of the driver).
Claim 6.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 5, as shown above. Additionally, Kemppainen discloses:
wherein the usage fee is calculated according to an attribute of the user or an attribute of the energy supply target (Kemppainen (Col. 10 Lines 40-53) charging parameters).
Claim 7.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 5, as shown above. Additionally, Kemppainen discloses:
a use-side-identification-information acquisition section for acquiring use-side identification information capable of identifying the energy supply target or the user of the energy supply target, the energy being supplied to the energy supply target from the energy output section (Kemppainen (Col. 8 Line 64-Col. 9 Line 21), (Col. 13 Lines 41-62) charging activation apparatus may identify the driver and/or owner of the vehicle including a customer ID (i.e. account ID) and a vehicle ID),
wherein the fee-charge processing section performs the process necessary for fee- charging the user specified by the use-side identification information acquired by the use-side- identification-information acquisition section (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 48-53) debit the account of the driver).
Claim 8.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Kemppainen discloses:
wherein the supply-amount-information acquisition section receives and acquires the supply amount information from a management apparatus for managing the energy supply target (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 40-62), (Col. 15 Lines 23-30), (Col. 17 Lines 54-62), (Col. 21 Lines 47-54) charging session record includes measured electricity consumption and charging session ID and is provided to the electricity provider 1 and electricity provider 2 servers).
Claim 9.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Kemppainen discloses:
wherein the supply-amount-information acquisition section receives and acquires the supply amount information from the energy supply target (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 28-31) measure consumption of electricity by the electric vehicle whilst charging the vehicle).
Claim 10.
Kemppainen discloses a system for managing a provision of energy, a use of energy or both of the provision and use of energy, comprising:
Kemppainen discloses the following limitation as shown above in claim 8:
the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, and
Additionally, Kemppainen discloses:
a management apparatus for managing the energy supply target and transmits the supply amount information to the information processing apparatus (Kemppainen (Col. 11 Lines 40-62), (Col. 15 Lines 23-30), (Col. 17 Lines 54-62), (Col. 21 Lines 47-54) charging session record includes measured electricity consumption and charging session ID and is provided to the electricity provider 1 and electricity provider 2 servers).
Claim 11.
Kemppainen discloses a system for managing a provision of energy, a use of energy or both of the provision and use of energy, comprising:
Kemppainen discloses the following limitation as shown above in claim 9:
the information processing apparatus according to claim 9; and
Additionally, Kemppainen discloses:
a transmission apparatus for transmitting the supply amount information from the energy supply target to the information processing apparatus (Kemppainen (Col. 7 Lines 18-25) first and second server are able to communicate via wired or wireless data connections; (Col. 8 Lines 30-38) communication apparatus of the vehicle).
Claim 12.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 12 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 13.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 13 as shown above in claim 5.
Claim 14.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 14 as shown above in claim 8.
Claim 15.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 15 as shown above in claim 9.
Claim 16.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 16 as shown above in claim 10.
Claim 17.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 17 as shown above in claim 11.
Claim 18.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 18 as shown above in claim 3.
Claim 19.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 19 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim 20.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 20 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemppainen in view of Jetzinger (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2026/0138488 A1), hereinafter Jetzinger.
Claim 2.
Kemppainen discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Regarding the following limitation:
wherein the energy output section receives the energy from an energy business-operator and supplies the energy to the energy supply target, the energy business-operator being paid an energy fee from the provider based on a total amount of an amount of the energy supplied from the energy output section to the energy supply target and an amount of the energy supplied from another energy output section other than the energy output section to another supply target other than the energy supply target.
Kemppainen discloses wherein the energy output section receives the energy from an energy business-operator and supplies the energy to the energy supply target, the energy business-operator being paid an energy fee from the provider (Kemppainen (Col. 7 Lines 6-11) electric provider 1 (EP1) includes first server 4 and may be the provide with which the owner or driver of the vehicle has an agreement for the provision/supply of electricity; (Col. 7 Lines 12-17) electricity provider 2 (EP2) may be the electricity provider with which the owner of the power outlet has an agreement for the supply and payment of electricity). However, Kemppainen does not discloses a total amount of an amount of the energy supplied from the energy output section to the energy supply target and an amount of the energy supplied from another energy output section other than the energy output section to another supply target other than the energy supply target, but Jetzinger does (Jetzinger [0022], [0068] amount of energy consumed can be added up and reimbursed in a price statement)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the summary transaction of Jetzinger for the single transaction single energy consumption of Kemppainen. Both individual payments and a summary payment are known transactions for paying bills. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element in the art of bill paying for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to substitute the above features and yield predictable result of Kemppainen’s system with the improved functionality to reduce the number of required financial interactions when there are repeated charges for energy usage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights